Darinwian Social Evolution

[Gibil]

I got into an interesting discussion with my friend earlier today, over the necessity or idea of controlling what people can and cannot do.  The argument stems from the over use of technology and easily accessible food products ((IE Fast Food And McDonalds)).  Though I understand that the occult and idea’s of social psychology aren’t necessarily related, there are patterns that emerge when one studies one own mind a lot so I thought I would throw these out at you guys and see what sticks and one does not.

The position advocated by my friend is similar to that of a child taking care of a parent taking care of a child.  That is to say that a parent is responsible for the child’s care and making decisions for the child, of course my response to this is that the child is literally physiologically incapable of taking care of these sort of moral decisions until at least the older teenage years 18+.

The more interesting portions of this conversation popped up at least for me, in the social ramifications of the digital medium and the various radio waves that we have bouncing through the air.  Though my knowledge of the biological ramifications of such ideas as PANs ((Personal Area Networks IE What Blue Tooth helps creates)) is very limited, I think I will throw up the social ramifications or the addictive tendency of the online social options ((WoW, Face Book, IRC etc)).

So the first topic I will cover goes to the area of online gaming.   It is very hard for us as connected creatures to deal with the biological impossibility of being better than other people.  So I throw out the idea of why do we do something; so that we can do it better than other people?  You may argue with me, but I want you to look at one of your hobbies that you do.  Do you get your inspiration for this from the action that the person does when you study it ((IE different demo video’s on you tube)), then you are actively trying to be as good as that other person.  The person then becomes the goal; you want to be as good as the other person.

An online community narrows the population curve; an online server can only handle so many players.  In a society where we are hounded by the numbers of people who are better than yes, the fact is that online we can handle this by reducing the numbers.  If you finish 5/12 you might not feel so good.  But if you finished 40/100 is this better?  Not only that but the needless concept of social interaction becomes less tiresome and well, so long as you can perform the task then your good.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/world-of-warcraft-players-need-not-apply/
A fairly good article as to the “illusion” of online gaming serving as a training zone for leadership and teamwork.  While we may lie to ourselves corporations don’t tend to do that, at the end of the day it’s the bottom line.

In an increasingly hard world of you tube videos and world records the crushing reality of the self-importance disappears.  100 years ago, your world was your town, and what happened over seas didn’t impact you in a way that you really didn’t notice.  So I ask to the nature of online communities, if it impacts the nature of our society in a better way.  While it makes it easier to communicate, the ease it makes lessons the emotional aspects of our interpersonal connections and we are left with a back wash of Apps that allow us to wish 80 people Merry Christmas at once.

The viewpoint of the Internet and digital media allows us the introduction of an alternate perception without the social risks that our current perceptions allow.  But to what end is this new perception used in terms of our interactions?

Now on the next point of this social psychology rant of mine.

Mass Food Production.

Yes that’s right McDonalds.
http://nutri-journal.blogspot.com/2008/02/mcdonalds-attractive-or-addictive.html

The above article is a fairly good article as to the nature of the attraction of McDonalds.  And while we may talk about it a lot we then deal with the nature of an addiction, in which the psychological need accounts for most of the addiction.  The psychological addiction though in Fast Food is simply the ease and cheapness of it.  It’s incredibly easy to just eat there.

So now I get into the conversation of controlling other people.  I don’t need to point out the above articles but the point is do we have the right to treat other people as a child and take away their choice.  That there is the keyword of course: Choice.  As we have already stated a child is not physiologically capable of making a correct “choice” but instead will take the choice that is provided. 

So I turn to Darwin for my answer.
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Now this is not to say physical evolution, but rather social evolution.  Removing the choice from the person does not correct the problem but rather act’s as a method of avoiding the problem at all.  The problem stems from two sources.  One Is Societal Conditioning And the Second Is Parental Conditioning.   Both of these are started from an early age; SC and PC relationship stem’s from PC.

Let us say we have a child who watches a lot of Barney.  Any parent can tell you how incredibly easy it is to turn the television on and let the child watch the television.  But I don’t need to go into how much this impacts our children it should be blatantly obvious.  I mean it’s like crack cocaine for three year olds.  This is then not taking into account, parental choices in food and toys.

What we might deem an unwise choice is made by the parent in which the child will “suffer” as a result.  Society then picks up later in life and we are left with the pre-programmed adult who is ready to make a whole bunch of dumb decisions now not only has his self-worth been inherently damage by the abundantly available news programs and shock videos showing just how little he can do.  But on top of that his metabolism has slowed down enough that McDonald’s will make him gain wait, and he is going to end up being addicted to that wonderful drug called caffeine.

So I present the Scary Concept of Darwinian Social Evolution.  In which we let people make their own decisions.  What does this mean……

[Necrosapiens]

Though I understand that the occult and idea’s of social psychology aren’t necessarily related

I wholeheartedly disagree.  Much of this "social darwinism" has been discussed by Ayn Rand and "Ragnar Redbeard", which was later picked up by our old friend Anton LaVey.

Part of the practice of what LaVey calls "Lesser Magic" is dependent on these psychological patterns and herd mentalities of the common human being.  Without these patterns, a woman wouldn't be able to get her way by showing a little cleavage (or back in time, a little ankle), donations wouldn't be given to starving children in Africa (just pennies a day, go collect your pathos appeal at the nearest television screen), and you might not be where you are today.

=============

As far as some decisions being left to children when they're 18+, I agree and disagree.  With the advent of instant gratification, instant (yet shallow) learning via the Google oracle, children aren't being parented just by the parents any longer.  It takes a village?  Well the internet has given rise to global villages.  I am not just influenced by the farmers in my home town, but by lines of thought streaming from the east coast, west coast, Idaho, Texas, Canada, England, and everywhere else.

=============

Controlling others?  Go for it.  Want to free them?  Go for it.  Do whatever the hell you want.  There are no rules.  But live up to the consequences of your actions.

Scary?  Maybe.  But think of the herd mentality...how many are going to take advantage of this?

The scary thing is that any chain is worn freely.

[Gibil]

Though I understand that the occult and idea’s of social psychology aren’t necessarily related

I wholeheartedly disagree.  Much of this "social darwinism" has been discussed by Ayn Rand and "Ragnar Redbeard", which was later picked up by our old friend Anton LaVey.
=============

Controlling others?  Go for it.  Want to free them?  Go for it.  Do whatever the hell you want.  There are no rules.  But live up to the consequences of your actions.

Scary?  Maybe.  But think of the herd mentality...how many are going to take advantage of this?

The scary thing is that any chain is worn freely.

Before I go and make a response I will first say, that you didn't quote me in my entirety

Though I understand that the occult and idea’s of social psychology aren’t necessarily related, there are patterns that emerge when one studies one own mind a lot so I thought I would throw these out at you guys and see what sticks and one does not.

I am not removing the possibility, however I am poking fun at the psuedo-science that people call psychology.  Psychology is no different than a giant educated guess when it comes to non-disease caused psychosis.  Psychology and Philosophy are always fun to poke at however one always run’s into separate crowds of definitions.

Oh joy’s the wondrous land of definitions in which we define things as separate.  While languages may retain a nice set of balancing scales for us a large chunk of the time, as a whole individual understandings of words don’t always convey back and forth.  ((Not to mention various metaphysicists/spiritualists who wish to remain in the realm of science))  Hence; my use of the word psyche to describe the soul-mind.

The word’s “aren’t necessarily related but” suggest to my mind the idea that while the two are of not direct lineage to each other ((That is to say medical psychology and esoteric study)) there are idea’s that swing back and forth between the two.  That’s the reason I used the words “patterns that emerge”. 

Anyways going back and forth to the original and final idea; which is to say the idea of social Darwinism.  I am familiar with the works of LaVey, and while he touches briefly he doesn’t dwell.  It’s like watching the artists who wishes to convey this idea and so briefly dips and dives to point you in that direction.

To quote you Necro
As far as some decisions being left to children when they're 18+, I agree and disagree.  With the advent of instant gratification, instant (yet shallow) learning via the Google oracle, children aren't being parented just by the parents any longer.  It takes a village?  Well the internet has given rise to global villages.  I am not just influenced by the farmers in my home town, but by lines of thought streaming from the east coast, west coast, Idaho, Texas, Canada, England, and everywhere else.

In which you fall flat faced into the mud of the media streamed entertainment.  While “our” thoughts are our own, and we can dwell on the supposed idea that everyone can think like us.  We have to face it that this remains a statistical phenomenon in which you and I are the exception rather than the rule.

I often point out to people the difference between rebelling against the system to rebel.    The opposing idea is of rebelling against the system to be your self.  While many of the people in subculture communities are of this first type, doing this in fact allows you a glimpse of the “rabbit hole”.  Now what you do with that might change day to day, but da da ta daaaa,  you might inadvertently fall in and become yourself for a change.

Now while you will get people who rebel against the system to rebel on the norm you will not get these.  Advertisements, Corporations, Media, of course “them” still fill the waves with various ideas and people still walk into McDonalds, Green Mom’s still take their recyclables to the recycle center in SUVs, etc etc etc.  Or do I need to go into the whole spectrum of screwed up shit. 

The whole point of this article is not about arguing, but about the prospect of social Darwinism as a theory or a practice and what you might think of it.

The scary thing is that any chain is worn freely

Define “freely”.  While I advocate the idea that everyone is given a choice at some point or another, the question then becomes how much of a choice, and is their such a thing as a choice? 

The reason why I ask this is that yes I could choose not to go to work this entire upcoming week but I would have to live with the repercussions of my actions.  Doesn’t really make a real choice does it, when the circumstances of your life and your concept of “morality” ((This is of course individual morality and not social/religious/political morality))

This is of course excluding the idea of pre-adult addiction.  I have established the idea that until we are 18 that we do not have the physiological ability to make “mature” decisions.  However what happens when “choices” are made for us during this time.  Subjection to Television,  Fast Food, Culture, Video Games, or other countless amusements and foods that our parents give to us instead of putting us over their knee’s or in the corner of the room.

Yes we are the exception to the rule, that percent of the population, which does not accept unconditionally the programming we are subjected to.  However I do not think that same conscious rationalization of the world can be made to the others who have never glimpsed down the rabbit hole.  ((Though this of course goes into the topic of “Media Magician”))

This also begs the question of what does it mean to wear a chain freely.  That allows for two possibilities.  Either we are exceptions to the rule by virtue of some factor ((Call it what you will)) or that we merely followed some procedure in which the end result was a freedom from said chain.  That being said I think that the case here is both.  I don’t think it’s one or the other but the temperament of the person aids this case, as does the status of being considered a “social misfit” by mainstream society.  If so that being that temperament aided this process.  Then by which means can we introduce this temperament to society.  When you have no one else to talk to but yourself, the introspective nature is introduced.  Barring a life changing occurance that forces you except something

What I simply suggest and ponder is what would happen, if we let them “make” their own “choices” of their own accord.

((This of course accepts the idea that we would be in some way safe from their said decisions which is nothing more than a semi-deluded fantasy))

V/R
Gibil

[VERTIGO]

In the ideosphere, there's but a law: everybody's hungry.

[Necrosapiens]

Though I understand that the occult and idea’s of social psychology aren’t necessarily related

I wholeheartedly disagree.  Much of this "social darwinism" has been discussed by Ayn Rand and "Ragnar Redbeard", which was later picked up by our old friend Anton LaVey.
=============

Controlling others?  Go for it.  Want to free them?  Go for it.  Do whatever the hell you want.  There are no rules.  But live up to the consequences of your actions.

Scary?  Maybe.  But think of the herd mentality...how many are going to take advantage of this?

The scary thing is that any chain is worn freely.

Before I go and make a response I will first say, that you didn't quote me in my entirety

Though I understand that the occult and idea’s of social psychology aren’t necessarily related, there are patterns that emerge when one studies one own mind a lot so I thought I would throw these out at you guys and see what sticks and one does not.

I am not removing the possibility, however I am poking fun at the psuedo-science that people call psychology.  Psychology is no different than a giant educated guess when it comes to non-disease caused psychosis.  Psychology and Philosophy are always fun to poke at however one always run’s into separate crowds of definitions.

Oh joy’s the wondrous land of definitions in which we define things as separate.  While languages may retain a nice set of balancing scales for us a large chunk of the time, as a whole individual understandings of words don’t always convey back and forth.  ((Not to mention various metaphysicists/spiritualists who wish to remain in the realm of science))  Hence; my use of the word psyche to describe the soul-mind.

The word’s “aren’t necessarily related but” suggest to my mind the idea that while the two are of not direct lineage to each other ((That is to say medical psychology and esoteric study)) there are idea’s that swing back and forth between the two.  That’s the reason I used the words “patterns that emerge”. 

Anyways going back and forth to the original and final idea; which is to say the idea of social Darwinism.  I am familiar with the works of LaVey, and while he touches briefly he doesn’t dwell.  It’s like watching the artists who wishes to convey this idea and so briefly dips and dives to point you in that direction.

To quote you Necro
As far as some decisions being left to children when they're 18+, I agree and disagree.  With the advent of instant gratification, instant (yet shallow) learning via the Google oracle, children aren't being parented just by the parents any longer.  It takes a village?  Well the internet has given rise to global villages.  I am not just influenced by the farmers in my home town, but by lines of thought streaming from the east coast, west coast, Idaho, Texas, Canada, England, and everywhere else.

In which you fall flat faced into the mud of the media streamed entertainment.  While “our” thoughts are our own, and we can dwell on the supposed idea that everyone can think like us.  We have to face it that this remains a statistical phenomenon in which you and I are the exception rather than the rule.

I often point out to people the difference between rebelling against the system to rebel.    The opposing idea is of rebelling against the system to be your self.  While many of the people in subculture communities are of this first type, doing this in fact allows you a glimpse of the “rabbit hole”.  Now what you do with that might change day to day, but da da ta daaaa,  you might inadvertently fall in and become yourself for a change.

Now while you will get people who rebel against the system to rebel on the norm you will not get these.  Advertisements, Corporations, Media, of course “them” still fill the waves with various ideas and people still walk into McDonalds, Green Mom’s still take their recyclables to the recycle center in SUVs, etc etc etc.  Or do I need to go into the whole spectrum of screwed up shit. 

The whole point of this article is not about arguing, but about the prospect of social Darwinism as a theory or a practice and what you might think of it.

The scary thing is that any chain is worn freely

Define “freely”.  While I advocate the idea that everyone is given a choice at some point or another, the question then becomes how much of a choice, and is their such a thing as a choice? 

The reason why I ask this is that yes I could choose not to go to work this entire upcoming week but I would have to live with the repercussions of my actions.  Doesn’t really make a real choice does it, when the circumstances of your life and your concept of “morality” ((This is of course individual morality and not social/religious/political morality))

This is of course excluding the idea of pre-adult addiction.  I have established the idea that until we are 18 that we do not have the physiological ability to make “mature” decisions.  However what happens when “choices” are made for us during this time.  Subjection to Television,  Fast Food, Culture, Video Games, or other countless amusements and foods that our parents give to us instead of putting us over their knee’s or in the corner of the room.

Yes we are the exception to the rule, that percent of the population, which does not accept unconditionally the programming we are subjected to.  However I do not think that same conscious rationalization of the world can be made to the others who have never glimpsed down the rabbit hole.  ((Though this of course goes into the topic of “Media Magician”))

This also begs the question of what does it mean to wear a chain freely.  That allows for two possibilities.  Either we are exceptions to the rule by virtue of some factor ((Call it what you will)) or that we merely followed some procedure in which the end result was a freedom from said chain.  That being said I think that the case here is both.  I don’t think it’s one or the other but the temperament of the person aids this case, as does the status of being considered a “social misfit” by mainstream society.  If so that being that temperament aided this process.  Then by which means can we introduce this temperament to society.  When you have no one else to talk to but yourself, the introspective nature is introduced.  Barring a life changing occurance that forces you except something

What I simply suggest and ponder is what would happen, if we let them “make” their own “choices” of their own accord.

((This of course accepts the idea that we would be in some way safe from their said decisions which is nothing more than a semi-deluded fantasy))

V/R
Gibil

TL/DR

[Gibil]

Then why bother even replying,  doing such insinuates you feel it is a waste of your time.  Ah wait,  yeah thats why.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr&defid=2441863
4.  tl;dr  "too long; didn't read."
1. The inability to accept, understand or pay attention to information when not separated by a header.
2. The ability to arbitrarily read 400 small posts but not a long one.
3. A sign of ADD or lack of reading capability.
4. A very cheap response and an indication of lack of wit.
5. 90% of the time: A lie.
6. A desperate attempt at a comeback used by people who just can't think of one.
7. Usually used by people who've been torn apart verbally but want one last attempt at looking witty.
8. Total failure at #7.
7. A sign that, not only is someone too lazy and stupid to read but, clearly, too lazy and stupid to even type out four words indicating such.
9. Collect every "tl,dr" post online, and you'll have a good estimate of the number of lazy idiots on Earth, who currently have Internet access.
10. Should really be:
"Too Lazy, Don't Read."
or,
".....I got nut'n!"

 

[Necrosapiens]

What I am insinuating is that you're full of words, but aren't saying anything that couldn't be reduced down to a paragraph or two.

Let's start from the beginning, shall we?

So I throw out the idea of why do we do something; so that we can do it better than other people?  You may argue with me, but I want you to look at one of your hobbies that you do.  Do you get your inspiration for this from the action that the person does when you study it ((IE different demo video’s on you tube)), then you are actively trying to be as good as that other person.  The person then becomes the goal; you want to be as good as the other person.


I do things because they bring me enjoyment.  I don't do them to be better than others per se, but do them to improve my ability, which is NOT inherently tied to being better than others, or becoming an idol or mentor.  It's about the journey, not the end result.


So I ask to the nature of online communities, if it impacts the nature of our society in a better way. 

You're on an online community now.  Do you think it's impacted you in a better way?  Your participation in the positive or negative aspects is your own choice.  You may be interacting in a positive way currently, but you can easily choose to "opt out" of the sort of drama some feel drags down the positives that arrive from this type of interaction.

So now I get into the conversation of controlling other people.  I don’t need to point out the above articles but the point is do we have the right to treat other people as a child and take away their choice.  That there is the keyword of course: Choice.  As we have already stated a child is not physiologically capable of making a correct “choice” but instead will take the choice that is provided.

I feel many people are not psychologically deeper than some children, just as there are many children who possess abilities above that of some adults.  If they can't make a choice or aren't psychologically able for whatever reason, why not make the choice for them?  If there are members of the herd, then perhaps they ought to be treated like such.

Or perhaps we are to provide them with the means to rise above the herd?  Who gave us this responsibility?  If you want it, take it.  I personally don't care to bother with those who do not have the faculties to provide me with meaningful interaction.

So on to evolution then.  If I am weak, then I will not advance the human race and be wiped out.  If it's going to happen anyways, what does it matter if I attempt to help it along or not?  It's not my burden.  If we let people make their own decisions, the weak will die off and that's the end of it.

=============

On to psychology.

Psychology is what makes social media work.  It is what keeps people glued to the television screen.  Calling it a psuedo-science is a faux pax on your part.  If it didn't work, then you wouldn't even be writing anything concerning Barney or the instant-gratification we get from Facebook, MySpace, or McDonalds.

That is not to say that psychology is without error.  As with any applied science, there are errors, mistakes, and many things undiscovered that will yet change the course of action in that field.  Go ask the blood-letting physicians of the middle-ages.

In which you fall flat faced into the mud of the media streamed entertainment.

I've actually stayed somewhat clear of some of these trappings.  I do have my addictions to certain media, but I recognize them for what they are and move on with my life, if possible.  I was actually referring to the interactions I've had with those on this forum, irc, and irl

Putting "us" as the "exception to the rule"...I would never go so far.  I'd like to view myself above the influence of this socially-driven drivel, but the fact of the matter is as long as I'm "plugged in" here, I'm not.  I am not any exception to any rule.  I am striving to be more aware, however.  It's not a process, and you're not going to be free of it unless you live as a hermit or die.

The opposing idea is of rebelling against the system to be your self.

There is no self, and if there is, it's molded by your parents, community, and the media.  There is no system when you're a part of it.  See above referencing hermitage or death.

This also begs the question of what does it mean to wear a chain freely.  That allows for two possibilities.  Either we are exceptions to the rule by virtue of some factor ((Call it what you will)) or that we merely followed some procedure in which the end result was a freedom from said chain.

I wouldn't say it'd be as simple as following some procedure, but perhaps we have done something to gain freedom from some chains.  And not all chains are undesirable.  Some we keep because we enjoy them.  The point is awareness of the chains that bind you so you can eliminate the ones you don't want and keep the ones you do.

The whole point of this article is not about arguing, but about the prospect of social Darwinism as a theory or a practice and what you might think of it.

I'm calling a big bs on this one.  You could have just said this at the beginning or end of your "article" but you didn't.  And taking into consideration your post after my TL/DR comment, it seems clear to me that you have no problem arguing at all.

[Dedecor_Vir]

What I simply suggest and ponder is what would happen, if we let them “make” their own “choices” of their own accord.

((This of course accepts the idea that we would be in some way safe from their said decisions which is nothing more than a semi-deluded fantasy))

V/R
Gibil
I have some ideas of what may happen, and what I think is more likely in given situations and such, but I would expect that anyone who may read what I have could probably figure as much on their own after reading this topic if they have not already pondered such things.

The bit about letting "them "make" their own "choices"" reminds me of an explanation that the, something to the effect of "goal", of breaking consensual reality/reaLIEty would be so that "they" (the people who make up the rest of the human population and for the most part seem to be referred to with some connotation of being like cattle) would be able to manifest whatever they really want, as they wouldn't be bound to the world that currently is, as it would have been destroyed, so to speak.  I remember that the discussion involved a question to the effect of 'What gives us the authority to reshape reality?', and what seemed to have been the defining response had some mention of the idea being that ' "We" would simply be removing the limitations of what the world currently is and walking away after that so that the people may do as they will.', and maybe simply watching, though I do not know if that was just a mental addition of mine.

Which leads me to actually being back to seeming to be related to what you're saying, or asking, and I feel like I need to repeat what I've said near the start.  I have ideas of what I think may happen, and how likely different chains seem to be for what may happen in different circumstances (which includes "freeing the herd in the current world as seems to be the focus here), but I suspect the people here would not need me to elaborate on such ideas due to their own capabilities.  So, I wish a happy ponderings upon a non-specific "you", most likely plural.

[Gibil]

I will separate this into two different points.  The first point is literary; I like essays and I like to write my thoughts down.  So if what I write seems longwinded to you then so be it.  I just happen to enjoy writing.  And I apologize if you did not or could not understand the use of literary devices.  Sorry it just happens to be the way I write.

Secondly onto the meat and potatoes of the subject. 

What is the definition of the word process.
1.   A series of actions, changes, or functions bringing about a result: the process of digestion; the process of obtaining a driver's license.

Regardless of what you are doing, any action that brings about any form of change ((a change of state could be considered a result)) is a process.  A process done once has the chance of being repeated.  This can be seen in the various grades of magical orders in which every neophyte goes through the same “process” or method of initiation.

Now I ask that you are going to quote me on an idea or thought that you completely quote me on the thought or idea.  While I stated the methods and ideas that online communities do provide an aid I also pointed out the negative aspects and left it there with a giant question mark.  That being said in this regard, to say “our” community this cannot and should not be used as an average or even seen as an average.  That would be something like using a control group and actually doing something with them, you can hardly call them a control group now can you.

As far as the illusion of the reasons why we do something,  I am going to let that one drop because I don’t feel like doing the roundabout argument with you that won’t get either of us anywhere.

Now back and forth to the other side.  I don’t hold us above the stream that is to say we are “exceptions” we all have our addictions.  I am merely pointing out that we cannot use ourselves as test subjects or comparative subjects to the rest of the percentage of society.
Simply we do not unconditionally accept the programming. 

Again I ask you to not quote me in pieces, it is a nasty way of changing what someone says to better suit ones arguments.

Now that I have pointed all of this out,  I ask you to look at the ending of both of my posts and notice the use of either dots as if it’s not quite ending.  This is invite others to comment,  and secondly my response in which State that I am pondering what would happen.

[Isaac]

I was thinking about this, which seems to be a concept on free will and this is the little thought I would like to add.

If the Goverment will take away the Free Will of the People, then yeah theres no Free Will (legally) and this would proabably stem a rebellion

or

If the Goverment gives something akin to complete freedom, so then not only do the "people" have free will but also the Corporations which will essentially brainwash the people with advertisments that will used to bombared said people.

Effectively with either the Goverment or the Corporation, free will is a lost aspect of common culture.

Although, I would offer a solution similair to the second choice above and that is give people free will but make one thing essentially illegal, that thing being advertisment. It shouldn't be illegal everywhere but putting things on bridges, buses and creating billboards just for Ads should be severely restricted.

Sorry there, kind of tangential, hope it means something to this thread.

[Ouroboros]

It seems that the free-will/determinism argument is thrown around quite a bit, and everyone always ends up more pissed off and stubborn about their opinion then when they started debating.
For me, the issue of free will can be summed up, by of all things, The Serenity Prayer.
This prayer is best understood under the framework of The Hermetic Quartenary

God, grant me the serenity (Silence)
To accept the things I cannot change; (Knowledge)
The courage to change the things that I can; (Will)
And the wisdom to know the difference. (Daring)

To Know, To Will, To Dare, and To Keep Silent

Knowledge is the ability to recognize the inherent qualities of human desires and impulses.
Will is possessed by those who act outside of neccessity and survival - by those with intent.
Daring is the ability to use intent with knowledge  - Wisdom.
Silence is the experience of those who posess knowledge, intent, and daring - Gnosis

The forfeiture of free will that exists within society, as well as the lack thereof in children, is the result of intention existing as an emergent property of consciousness. Desires and impulses always exist, and the ability to discern is highly variable depending on the age of the person, intelligence, education, and context of the specified interaction.
There are several key factors that seem to influence the course of human interaction. Most notably, people tend to make impulsive decisions or have decisions made for them when there is a strong emotional investment in the behavior. The emotional context of such behaviors is not only influenced by parental and societal conditioning (as previously mentioned), but by the conscious effort made by such an individual to either trust or distrust other members within a community.
Often times, people do not make rash decisions because they lack the ability to think for themselves, but rather they have come to trust people to make decisions for them that are not always in their best interest. Much of this has to do with poor education, or lack of intelligence, but I suspect that such behavior is more deeply rooted in apathy.
The culture of appreciation that once existed in our society is greatly diminished. As a result, we have traded in our ability to execute well-planned decisions for the convenience of technological advances. We have become defined not by our contributions and innovations, but by our ability to accomodate and assimilate to popular culture and ideas.
To me, the distinction between what is free will and what is determined is less important to me then our ability to understand the relationship between the two...

- Ouro

[ZazzyE]

I will separate this into two different points.  The first point is literary; I like essays and I like to write my thoughts down.  So if what I write seems longwinded to you then so be it.  I just happen to enjoy writing.  And I apologize if you did not or could not understand the use of literary devices.  Sorry it just happens to be the way I write.

Secondly onto the meat and potatoes of the subject. 

What is the definition of the word process.
1.   A series of actions, changes, or functions bringing about a result: the process of digestion; the process of obtaining a driver's license.

Regardless of what you are doing, any action that brings about any form of change ((a change of state could be considered a result)) is a process.  A process done once has the chance of being repeated.  This can be seen in the various grades of magical orders in which every neophyte goes through the same “process” or method of initiation.

Now I ask that you are going to quote me on an idea or thought that you completely quote me on the thought or idea.  While I stated the methods and ideas that online communities do provide an aid I also pointed out the negative aspects and left it there with a giant question mark.  That being said in this regard, to say “our” community this cannot and should not be used as an average or even seen as an average.  That would be something like using a control group and actually doing something with them, you can hardly call them a control group now can you.

As far as the illusion of the reasons why we do something,  I am going to let that one drop because I don’t feel like doing the roundabout argument with you that won’t get either of us anywhere.

Now back and forth to the other side.  I don’t hold us above the stream that is to say we are “exceptions” we all have our addictions.  I am merely pointing out that we cannot use ourselves as test subjects or comparative subjects to the rest of the percentage of society.
Simply we do not unconditionally accept the programming. 

Again I ask you to not quote me in pieces, it is a nasty way of changing what someone says to better suit ones arguments.

Now that I have pointed all of this out,  I ask you to look at the ending of both of my posts and notice the use of either dots as if it’s not quite ending.  This is invite others to comment,  and secondly my response in which State that I am pondering what would happen.

TL/DR.

[Draginvry]

Too long.  Unfortunately, I did read.

I'm still not certain what the debate actually is.  Something about Darwin.

[K-R-X]

Fast Food. I think they're talking about fast food on the internet.

Or something.